And he answers: Prior to the 20th century, treating people (including within our own families) like animals or worse was commonplace.

Click to expand...

To some extent that's true, but a lot of it had to do with poverty... or rather the effect that prevalent poverty had on the culture. I'm not sure if that's something easy for you to understand. The rise of the modern-day thriving middle class didn't really come about until the 20s, then was put on hold during the Depression and eventually came back in the 50s.

And he answers: Prior to the 20th century, treating people (including within our own families) like animals or worse was commonplace.

Click to expand...

I think your mate is not wrong,but maybe missing a couple of vital elements for example the way the world was turned on its axis by the advent of mechanisation and the end of WWI both of which created massive changes to social structures and how the aspirations of peoples changed. For example women coming into the work place in a meanful way during WW1. Prior to that communities generally specialised in a certain craft or industrial process (coalmining, weaving, pottery) whereas after WW1 whole communities were decimated and displaced and aspirations changed. Education in a structured way was demanded by and for the workforce in order to operate and maintain factories and equipment etc. Emerging industries like electrical or chemical were becoming more industrial and complex demanding better educated workers.

Granny says, "Dat's right - we coulda won dat war if it hadn't been fer alla hippies an' peaceniks...Military Victory But Political Defeat: The Tet Offensive 50 Years LateJanuary 29, 2018 - Looking back a half century, to when they were young officers, their memories of the battle of Hue are still fresh. "What I saw was probably the most intense ground fighting on a sustained basis over several days of any other period during the war," says Howard Prince, an Army captain who worked with South Vietnamese forces. "We were under fire, under heavy fire," says Jim Coolican, a Marine captain.

Mike Downs, another Marine captain recalls, "We didn't know where the enemy was, in which direction even." The enemy forces were everywhere. Inside houses and tunnels and in the sewer system, and they captured the citadel, a massive castle-like expanse in this city that was once the imperial capital, just north of Saigon. It was the bloodiest battle of the Tet Offensive and also the entire war — and it all took American officials completely by surprise, says author Mark Bowden. "You had the incredible rose-colored reports coming from Gen. William Westmoreland, who was the American commander in Vietnam," says Bowden, who wrote the recent book Hue 1968. "[He was] assuring the American people that the end was near, that the enemy was really only capable of small kinds of ambushes in the far reaches of the country."

Two U.S. military policemen aid a wounded fellow MP during fighting in the U.S. Embassy compound in Saigon, at the beginning of the Tet Offensive. A Viet Cong suicide squad seized control of part of the compound and held it for about six hours before they were killed or captured.​

But then came Tet. North Vietnamese troops and their Viet Cong allies swept throughout cities and towns, into military bases, even breaching the walls of the U.S. Embassy grounds in Saigon. Back in Washington, President Lyndon Johnson called his defense secretary, Robert McNamara, and asked for an explanation. McNamara told him that the American people would realize that the enemy forces were stronger than they had been told, that the Pentagon was searching for targets but the Vietnamese enemies were still a "substantial force." A substantial force. But just six weeks earlier, a top White House official told New York Times reporter Gene Roberts the war was already over. Roberts was heading off to Vietnam, so National Security Adviser Walt Rostow gave him a story idea. He told Roberts about a new U.S. agricultural program, Roberts recalls, "which would double the rice yields in Vietnam and would win the peace now that Americans had won the war."

The battle for Hue

Far from winning, the Americans were barely holding on in Hue. Roberts saw terrified refugees, wounded marines and heavy gunfire. His first story said the Marines controlled just two blocks of the city. Reinforcements were needed. Not just troops but artillery. That was slow in coming. Jim Coolican, a Marine captain during the battle, said his own military superiors didn't understand how desperate the Marines were. The Americans were badly outnumbered. "The reaction we got and I'm paraphrasing now, but the reaction we got was that we were overreacting. It isn't that bad," remembers Coolican. More reporters showed up at Hue, including some from NBC. The pictures showed a desperate scene, talking to a Marine under fire who said he just wanted to go home.

Keeping his head low against North Vietnamese snipers, a medical corpsman scurries to help a U.S. Marine in Hue street fighting during the Tet Offensive.​

Still, Westmoreland downplayed the situation, telling reporters the real enemy objective was a large and remote Marine base at Khe Sanh. "In my opinion," Westmoreland told reporters, "this is diversionary to his main effort, which he had planned to take place in Quang Tri Province, from Laos toward Khe Sanh and across the demilitarized zone." But Howard Prince, a young Army officer fighting at Hue, said Westmoreland had it backwards. Khe Sanh was the diversion. "Westmoreland and his staff, the people who were advising him, became fixated on Khe Sanh," says Prince, "to the point where they simply were not capable of entertaining other information."

the Constitution empowers the government to promote the common welfare and to take any steps that are "necessary and proper" to do so

by contrast, the Constitution makes no provision for engaging in foreign wars but right wingers love to do so because it creates huge profits for the rich

Click to expand...

Of course the Constitution has provision for foreign wars.

Article I, Section 8:
The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
(snip)
To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

the Constitution empowers the government to promote the common welfare and to take any steps that are "necessary and proper" to do so

by contrast, the Constitution makes no provision for engaging in foreign wars but right wingers love to do so because it creates huge profits for the rich

Click to expand...

Total incorrect reading of the Constitution, but a reading the "progressives" love. By that reading, the federal govt can do anything it wants, it has unlimited power, and that is clearly contrary to the Constitution and all of the writings by the writers and signers of the Constitution. Take US govt 101.

Okay this whole argument started with me and my friend talking about the importance of school education....wich opened a whole new argument and lead you to thinking.

So i tell him (because he takes education very serious) I just want to know how in the hell the world made it to the 20th century without public education?

And he answers: Prior to the 20th century, treating people (including within our own families) like animals or worse was commonplace.

Was that respond a reach, or was it really like that? Would really like to know more about us evolving as humans, what are your thoughts?

Click to expand...

People were not "stupid" before the 20th century. People confuse technological level with intelligence. Technology is a continuous process of incremental advancement, modern technology is the result of a 6000 year process.

The real difference is free time, not intelligence. When people had to spend all their time on growing and collecting food just to survive, and on protecting themselves from the elements, then there is little time for anything else such as art or science or schools. Innovation and advancement is slow.

As people learned about agriculture and husbandry, they had a little more free time. It was not until the industrial revolution that people had real free time to the point where some people did not have to worry at all about collecting food or protection from the elements, those people could spend all their time on art and science and inventions.

The more free time people have, the more resources they can spend on advancing technology. As technology advances it gives people more free time. The process feeds on itself.